[Below is a response to a commented posted on my Facebook blog (Apr. 5) regarding Peter Beinart and the link below.]
I had not seen the NPR piece on Peter Beinart, but have seen a number of articles on his recent book (that I have not read) and his March 18 opinion piece in the New York Times(which I have read).
The attention he's receiving, in my view, seems out of proportion. However, the reasons are not hard to surmise.
Firstly, Beinart is an establishment, liberal intellectual: he is a Rhodes scholar, was editor at the New Republic, has had speaking engagements at AIPAC (the leading Israel lobby in the United States), was Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, has published in most major news periodicals, and has appeared on most major media outlets.
Beinart was initially a supporter of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Despite changing his position, he still resides on the list of the war's advocates - a roster I tend to keep in mind.
Secondly, his position on Israel is safely - and predictably - located within the liberal parameters acceptable to the intellectual and political establishment (see my Jan. 14 blog note). So when he says in the Times op-ed that goods produced in the Israeli settlements should be boycotted, this otherwise statist intellectual - who also happens to be Jewish and a self-described Zionist - appears to be getting up on his hind legs. Hence the clamor and commentary.
I agree with Beinart on a number of points: the occupation and settlement of the West Bank threatens Israel and its democracy. Fair enough. He is also arguing for a two-state solution, which is in accordance with international law and the global consensus as to how to solve the conflict. I, like most of the world, am also a "two-stater." And he is critical of the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) as promoting a one-state solution - not entirely different from what the Israeli government is promoting, albeit with an apartheid twist. Agreed.
The rest of Beinart's attention is focused on Israel's future, boycotting settlement goods, and changing the name West Bank to "nondemocratic Israel." His discussion (in the op-ed and interviews) is Jewish-centric, padded with sentimentalism, and doesn't bring US foreign policy into the frame.
Though attempting to offer an alternative to the BDS model, Beinart's strategy is equally thin, and has merely added to and complicated the boycott debate: Is the issue economic or symbolic? What about products that have components made in the West Bank? What about companies that have only a branch in the West Bank? When the discussion becomes this labyrinthine and exhausting, it is generally a strong indication the direction is a fruitless one. Much like the Israel lobby debate, which kicked into high gear with the Mearsheimer-Walt essay and their subsequent book, the debate becomes academic, buried in details, and wide of the point. (I examine the lobby issue in detail in chapter 6 of my Straight Power Concepts.)
When one looks at Beinart's op-ed piece and the flurry of articles produced in response, as mentioned, what is noticeably lacking is discussion of the near-total US support for Israel's local behavior and its regional role. This subject is of utmost importance. With the lobby debate, the topic of Washington was central, but was characterized as being manipulated by the all-powerful Israel lobby - a thesis difficult to take seriously. In both cases, the core of the Palestine-Israel conflict and the US-Israeli "special relationship" is removed from consideration: Mearsheimer and Walt turn it upside down; Beinart merely chooses to talk about something else.
Boycotting is one tactic among many that can be used to bring attention to Israel's occupation. But that is all it is. Not buying this or that product, or musicians choosing not to perform in Israel, can indeed shed light and draw attention. But the White House, the Pentagon, and defense contractors like Boeing and General Dynamics are not affected and couldn't care less. As long as Americans do not understand the fundamental realities of the conflict and Israel's larger US-supported role in the Middle East, Washington and Tel Aviv will continue as they have for decades. Education is critical.
Beinart and others are not talking about these realities, which is why they garner so much attention. Because when the discourse becomes precise and moves beyond the liberal boundaries, the major media get quiet and doors start closing. And I suspect Beinart very much prefers the open doors to which he has become accustomed.
